Look what the creeps at UP did.

I was talking specifically about HO scale trains, not toys, Charles. Most of my discounts were 40/10 from my model railroad suppliers. The only straight 40% I can recall was Bev-Bel, all of the others were definitely 40/10, except the one, which offered me 50% because I paid cash, and I picked up the stuff at their location (shipping was included in the 40/10 price). Jeff

I wonder if U.P. would let us license a shirt with "I see dumb people" and the Union Pacific herald® on it?

Nice try - I predict that UP won't take a beating in the press and from stockholders over this.

Are you a graduate of the Rathburne school of jumping to wrong conclusions?

1) I am well aware of the Hundman editorial, it was mentioned here weeks ago. 2) Let us all know where I wrote that U.P. will continue on with their license agreement as-is. They may well change, perhaps with intervention of groups like the MRIA. I never stated that this license agreement is destined to go on status-quo. Do me a favor, let me know where I wrote that. Maybe Rathburne can help you with that one. 3) The *majority* of the basis for my view is that U.P. has a right to do what they are doing -- and the general press recognizes this (and doesn't give a rat's ass), the model railroad press recognizes it (although they may not like it), and a large majority of UP shareholders recognize and agree with it. That's a line of BS that I am basing my view *entirely* on the fact that it has been some months since the implementation and no such backlash has occurred yet -- but that certainly falls in favor of my view doesn't it?

Yeah, sure... why else would you ask that question out of the blue?

Please accept my apology as well. One of the things about a forum like this is it is so easy to jump to conclusions and write things we really did not mean to write - see my recent responses to your post for a good example. I'll admit it is easy to get caught up in every little detail and phrase in posts and sometimes things are written that shouldn't be.

This group has been a very educational one for me. Sometimes I might over extend my points with enthusiasm instead of hard facts but I guess that is alright, most of us are guilty of that. I love this hobby and trains in general and am glad I can share it with people online here.

CBix

I dared to say something King Andy did not like and now he, like all cowards, killfiles me. Killfiles are the weak persons best friend. I will give credit to Procter and others, he keeps at it defending his views (however dumb they are ;-)) but guys like Andy run home to mommy for a diaper change.

And Mark I will look to see about the post................

The 1960s.

Photos?

None that I took -- I was but a young lad without a camera in those days.

Here is a 1966 photo taken by Jim Sands:

The GB&W began applying three-foot long football-shaped "Home of the Packers" logos to the sides of many of its freight cars in the early 1960s. My understanding is that they specifically didn't use the infamous Green Bay Packers "G" logo because of trademark issues. The logos began to disappear from cars as they were shopped at the end of the Lombardi era. (Green Bay Packers fans started to get scare about that time, too.)

What I'd like to know is -- did any other railroad ever have NFL team logos on their freight cars? I know it's always sad to hear about someone's model taking a dive to the floor from an unprotected spur or open drawbridge on a layout, but I would get somewhat perverse pleasure if I ever found out that about fifteen Chicago Bears boxcars plunged to their demise from a layout.

And therefore, this example is NOT one you have specified. In other words, it is not an official, sanctioned, licensed, NFL logo.

Brian

Are you a graduate of the Rathburne school of jumping to wrong conclusions? Where were the "official," "sanctioned" or "licensed" used in the original question?

Jon Miller's entire question (repeated here for clarity) was:

My point is that the logo on the GBW boxcar is NOT an "NFL logo", and you said so yourself: they didn't use the Packer's logo because of trademark issues.

Right?

Brian

Hey, that's not perverse, just normal good taste.

Carrying loads of brats, no doubt.

Brian

Brian

Not sure if my last post made it through...

The original point wasn't that the railroads had NFL cars. Not sure how people got that out of what I wrote. I could have made the point with any trademark. UP has the right to license their protected properties, just like the NFL does, just like Chrysler does, just like Hershey's does.

I think it stinks but thats the way it is. I hope those in a position to influence this are successful in swaying them away from this, but I fear that this will cause price increases that will transcend the $5 we've seen thus far. I saw the coin collecting hobby go to crap when "investors" got involved, this isn't the same thing but it smells of a similar odor.

Greg

Well, hey, now, gloating over the death of children. I never sausage a reprehensible sentiment.

Speaking of which, did you know Sara Lee is the parent company for both Hanes underwear & Jimmy Dean sausage?

She's on a roll! ;-)

So, you get a chubby Jimmy with each pair of shorts?

Hey! Isn't Green Bay home of the 2003 Swiss Cheese defense?

Why doesn't Milwaukee have a football team? Because then Green Bay would want one!

Not that the "Bloomington" Bears (they've been playing U of I while Soldier Field is rebuilt) are much better...

Jay CNS&M Wireheads of the world, unite!